|
First thing first: What an awful lynch.
Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote.
If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote.
I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler).
I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing.
this is just wrong:
On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:
Please give away two of your votes. This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best.
If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read.
|
I will only give away 1 vote. No matter what plan or what trick I won't give away more then 1 vote.
|
On January 29 2012 20:41 Palmar wrote:
Do you not have time to play this game jackal or do you just not care about it?
On January 29 2012 07:10 Jackal58 wrote:
My wife and I are going out shortly and I will be gone til after the flip. My vote is going on wbg. It's purely meta.
I care. I wasn't home last night.
|
On January 29 2012 20:50 layabout wrote:
First thing first: What an awful lynch.
Please explain why you think this way.
Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote.
If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote.
I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler).
I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing.
This is all fluff, everything in this paragraphs has already been mentioned.
this is just wrong: Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:
Please give away two of your votes. This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best. If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read.
What?
|
comments in italic:
On January 29 2012 22:08 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 20:50 layabout wrote:
First thing first: What an awful lynch.
Please explain why you think this way. wbg never posted in his defence and i didn't have computer acess, i don't see what would be prodictive about me explaining why i think you made a bad decision.* Show nested quote +
Second thing second: The plan seems to revolve around lots of players having 3 votes who then decide who to give their votes to. The balancing relies upon people with lots of votes giving some of them to people with only 1 vote.
If people give it different numbers of votes then there will be a reduced number of players with 3 votes, and the number of players with 1 vote.
I think that we should all be trading the same number of votes. (this should make it easier to confirm players votes as it makes things simpler).
I think two votes is a risk but i think that it is acceptable. It keeps a larger number of vote in the game (which is good as it makes it harder for mafia to control the lynch). And mafia should not be able to hold on to all of their votes gained due to re-balancing.
This is all fluff, everything in this paragraphs has already been mentioned. Fluff my arsehole. There are still a number of player who have not yet said that they are on board. Additionally the number of votes people trade is important and is one of the only things that we can actually discuss.Show nested quote +this is just wrong: On January 29 2012 11:26 Paperscraps wrote:-snipped- On January 29 2012 09:52 LSB wrote:
Please give away two of your votes. This is for two reasons
1) Giving away two of your votes eliminates looses if you get nightkilled. Even if you don't think you are a high target, mafia could always bluesnipe.
2) People with 1 vote only are extreamly crucial during re-balancing. During Night 1, people with 1 vote are the ones who would receive votes from people with 3+ votes in order to ensure that the vote distribution stays roughly equal. So if you are left with only 1 vote Day 2, there is a high likelyhood that you would have 3+ votes Day 2. How many votes people give away should be factored by two things: 1. More votes if you think your read is very pro-town and less votes if you think your read is town,but still have some reservations about the read. (This is more applicable to late game)2. If you think you will die during the night, trading the most votes possible is best. If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read. What? maybe you could try reading?
*but i will explain it anyway, and do so by looking at one of your posts:
On January 29 2012 06:00 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 29 2012 05:21 prplhz wrote:You are player A and below you is player B. You think that player C is more likely to be town than player B. How would town benefit from you giving player B your vote and hiding behind a silly plan? Would town not benefit more from you giving your vote to player C along with an explanation that would convince everybody else that player C is more likely to be town than player B? You are player A. It is day1 you can give away 1 or 2 votes. Why would town benefit more from you giving away 2 votes than 1? Unless you expect that you're going to die that makes no sense. We have to play mafia and mafia includes a lot of forcing people to generate content to see how they behave. The plan "wing it and keep us posted" accomplishes exactly that. We can't sit around and be too afraid to do anything, that wont ever win us the game and it might just lose it for us. We can't let ourselves be distracted by huge plans that require everybody to be Mafia might look townie but only if they act townie. If they act townie then we're gonna win anyway 'cause they'll need to surrender after having bussed all of their teammates. I'm going to hold everybody responsible for whoever they give their votes to, I don't care if they're below you on the list or not, if you give your vote to someone then you better have a really good reason for this.
Anyway, wherebugsgo is scum. wherebugsgo's town play can be characterized as very active and aggressive, he's a good scum hunter and decent at getting town to listen to him, he very certain and concious of his own ability, and he doesn't take shit from anybody. He always keeps his eyes on the ball and never makes a single post that doesn't have a purpose and that doesn't make sense. As scum he is still very active, but he doesn't make sense with everything he says. He is more lazy, less constructive, and more of a dick. I don't see town wherebugsgo. I see scum wherebugsgo. His vote against risk.nuke was terrible and he should know this, yet he votes him. First of all, risk.nuke is making sense in what he is saying, the trade circle (can we please refer to it as trade circle 'cause the other moniker is fucking terrible) is a bad idea. Second of all, anybody who is that vocal in their opposition to any plan is rarely scum. Third, wherebugsgo is voting risk.nuke because "he [risk.nuke] can't see this common sense" (about the trade-circle), but Palmar is opposing it too. Why does he hold risk.nuke to a higher standard than Palmar when Palmar is one of the best players in this game while risk.nuke is known to be semi-obstructive and hard to work with? Town wherebugsgo would have gone for Palmar because he has absolutely no excuse for what wherebugsgo says is bad logic, instead he avoids to do that. The vote was terrible and he retracts it without further reasoning. wherebugsgo votes for a lot of reasons, but this vote had no purpose other than him attempting to show his standard aggressive play but fails because he has no arguments. wherebugsgo ALWAYS has arguments, like this, this, and this. Contrast those posts to "he can't see the logic of a bad plan". His support of the trade-circle is also weird, wherebugsgo is fear mongering. The most obvious plan is that townies trade based on their reads, this will force people to contribute and will give us more very relevant to analyse. The trading is like a vote every night for who people think is more townie. wherebugsgo should think that this is awesome because he is town, but instead he thinks it's terribly because he's scum. Look at this post. "Giving votes to who you think is town is terrible because scum will look more town, THAN TOWNIES". What the fuck kind of logic is this? How are we every going to catch scum then, is he setting us up to lynch the people who look most town because they're likely scum? Second paragraph is hilarious. If we can't trust people to semi-reliably pick out who is townie, then how can we trust them to semi-reliably pick out who is scum? If we can't trust them to do that then what the hell can we do, just sit here and be so afraid to make mistakes that we will give the game away to scum? Single VP from town to mafia doesn't matter much because the mafia players who will end up with the most VP will be the most active and they will be figured out, the mafia players with fewer votes wont be as important to figure out right away. wherebugsgo should be fucking hooked on the free-trade plan, I don't remember a time when he was killed by town when he was town, but he's been figured out the last two times he was scum. That means that when he is town people usually know this, while when he's scum people will usually know this too. Then why doesn't he support the plan of trading VP to people who are town? Free-trading is a plan that allows everybody to ensure that their ability will be converted to votes, I think it massively favors town as long as we don't screw up massively which I am not going to assume. In this game we don't get a mod confirmed alignment of people who die. We need an analysis to confirm their alignment to ourselves. wherebugsgo provides absolutely no analysis for risk.nuke other than "he doesn't support the plan". Look at this. This is what wherebugsgo is capable of, that analysis was done a lot later in that game but wherebugsgo has uncharacteristically provided nothing at all this game. Now he is ready to kill me and [UoN]Sentinel at Paperscraps with absolutely no analysis given, even though wherebugsgo always provides some reason and analysis is even more important in this game than in any other. Only scum would benefit from a lynch we're unsure of because they would be able to spin it in any direction favorable to them. That said, I don't think [UoN]Sentinel or Paperscraps looks like they're likely scum. There's a lot of behavior from wherebugsgo that seems off but it's quite hard to write it down in a way that would make sense to a person who doesn't have several games with wherebugsgo. wherebugsgo is absolutely the best lynch we can get day1, I briefly considered other people and no-lynching but I'm pretty sure about this. I came to the conclusion that wherebugsgo was scum in Mini Mafia X and Responsibility Mafia! and I'm confident that he's scum in this game too even considering that it's pretty early in the game (caught on to him early on in Mini Mafia X too though) I know I voted earlier but it just looks good at the end of an analysis: ##Vote: wherebugsgo
About the votes on me so far; they're all god damn stupid. If you really want me to defend myself I'll do that because I have more time now, but I don't think that if any of you read any of the few arguments that's been put forward so far, that you could tell me why they make it more likely that I am scum over town. I don't claim to be the towniest person but I am neither scummy and nor the scummiest so there's absolutely no reason to lynch me. Also, so funny with people voting for me for not immediately providing analysis, when they don't care about the analysis that free-trading would force out of everybody. Voting to force analysis out of me, but won't adopt a voting plan that forces analysis out of everybody. I think this is the soundest lynch logic I've heard thus far. + Show Spoiler +On January 27 2012 19:31 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 19:22 Paperscraps wrote:
After Night 1 I am all for doing something else. We will have more information, due to the possibility of power roles. Power roles will be able to be 100% percent sure on things and lead town to lynches and pro-town reads. After Night 1 your plan is sound. This. I don't get why people are convinced they'd have to circlejerk until the end of the universe if we go with the plan. I just want a one or two night circlejerk, get information out, and then start voting appropriately. This is one of the posts I made between my two-day circle trade idea (that's getting me lynched) and my one-day circle trade idea that shows I was changing my mind, not just sporadically suggesting plans to fuck everyone over. I'm a noob who felt good when his first post got received so warmly. Get over it. People poked holes in my initial circle trade, I came up with 2-day circle trade. People poked holes in that, I came up with 1-day circle trade. People poked holes in that, oh well, shitty plan, let's try something different. Now I like LSB's vote trading plan, and that hasn't had enough holes poked into it to change my mind again. I'm done vouching my defense for now. Bugs never justified his vote on me. Well he did, but when I asked him about it, Paperscraps just took over and I never got a reply from bugs. Reading his earlier threads (especially that long justification he did) makes me suspicious of this action. Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 10:19 VisceraEyes wrote:On January 28 2012 10:05 Paperscraps wrote:On January 28 2012 09:36 layabout wrote:+ Show Spoiler [Paperscraps last post] +On January 28 2012 09:24 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 05:13 Jackal58 wrote:
Scum can gain voting power by killing the people they trade votes with.
And don't vote for the cowboy. Palmar is town.
Any reasons to why you think Palmar is town? The way the game is evolving right now, Palmar seems to be gaining a lot of town support, thus more likely to get votes on N1 if we do the free trade system. Am I the only one wary of this? There is no possible way to know whether or not he is town or mafia on D1. This is a game of wits and Palmar is a smart fellow, just saying. Show nested quote +On January 28 2012 05:05 Palmar wrote:On January 28 2012 04:24 Paperscraps wrote:On January 27 2012 22:57 Palmar wrote:
The difference between finding mafia to lynch and finding townie to pass your vote to is night and day. Remember, if you just randomize it, you still have 70% chance of hitting a townie. Add in even a tiny bit of thinking and that percentage goes up.
When you're trying to lynch scum it's the opposite, and you will be influenced by outside factors (it's harder to get wagons started on scum). However, this is your decision and your decision alone, so you have complete control over the outcome.
There is no such thing as safe play in mafia. It's not safe to do the circle of trust because we don't know what abilities the mafia has, and we cannot possibly gain an advantage through that method. With no advantage we don't know how the game is balanced. "I just chose at random" This justification completely negates what your plan is trying to do, which is to get scumtells from peoples justification on their trades. Another contradiction By your logic and probability, townies should trade their votes at random N1, ~70% chance to trade to another townie. So, which one is it Palmar? Free trade + justifications or randomized trading. On January 27 2012 19:57 Palmar wrote:
whatever, I don't have the energy to argue with dumb.
I will not be following whatever plan you guys cook up. I will be following my own plan. This is so anti-town. Solidarity is crucial, not dissidence. You are forcing the town to do one of two things, follow you or lynch you. Seems like a scummy power play to me. ##Vote: Palmar You're not helping anyone with that. You're just being dumb. Seeing as you're probably town you're working directly against your win condition. I didn't suggest anyone randomized, I was just pointing out what a great starting point we had even if we simply randomed. Don't try to see things that aren't there. Palmar, why the lack of open-mindedness? The benefit of circle trading N1 is much safer than free trading to people based of some perception we got during D1. I don't disagree with a free trade + justification plan after N1, but N1 circle trading seems the best options, until we get some solid reads during D2. I'll leave my vote on you until you give some valid benefits to free trade over circle trading N1.
Does anyone think no lynching is an option D1? The mafia have a set KP, thus we only lose 1 townie and D2 we have a ton more information to work with. Odds are we will lynch a townie today. I am fine with lynching this guy. What's this i am gonna leave my vote on you crap? He is also hinting at a no-lynch on the basis that we will likely hit a townie, which is just plain bad If you think I am guilty, why not vote me up then? I am leaving my vote on Palmar, because he is being unreasonable. Hopefully he will post something more constructive, instead of just calling people "dumb". I on the other hand am open to suggestions and willing to change if people post logical arguments. 4/15 chance to hit mafia, 11/15 chance to hit townie. You are willing to lynch me right now and that would be very bad for town. Why the sudden change from purple and viscera to me? Why is a no-lynch so frowned upon? I understand that we can only kill mafia by lynching, but D1 odds are against us. Because the odds are against us all days, not just D1. Do you think scum are going to withhold their NK because they haven't figured out who's blue yet? More information would be nice, but a slightly lessened chance of killing scum (lynching D1) is better than zero chance of killing scum (NL D1). If you want to see the No-Lynch in action, go check out XLVIII. + Show Spoiler +Scum Victory - not really because of the No-Lynches, but please note the chaos that surrounds EVERY lynch. NL is hardly ever the answer. I'm going back to do a reread and a couple filters, so in the meantime... ##Unvote: PaperscrapsI don't think I'll be able to get the support I'd need, and I'm starting to doubt you're red myself. Not many scum would suggest no-lynch like that...especially since it's so frowned upon in most towns. I'll be back later tonight with my vote. So the only real argument he's made all game he rescinds. I'd say VE is fluffing the thread, but bugs has more holes in his story/justification. Thus: ##Vote: wherebugsgo
so you start by sating that prphz has got some sound logic.
+ Show Spoiler [he hasn't] +prphz make a lot of asserions about WBG's meta. and then calls him scum based on 3 things: He voted for risk nukeHis vote against risk.nuke was terrible and he should know this, yet he votes him. First of all, risk.nuke is making sense in what he is saying, the trade circle (can we please refer to it as trade circle 'cause the other moniker is fucking terrible) is a bad idea. Second of all, anybody who is that vocal in their opposition to any plan is rarely scum. Third, wherebugsgo is voting risk.nuke because "he [risk.nuke] can't see this common sense" (about the trade-circle), but Palmar is opposing it too. Why does he hold risk.nuke to a higher standard than Palmar when Palmar is one of the best players in this game while risk.nuke is known to be semi-obstructive and hard to work with? Town wherebugsgo would have gone for Palmar because he has absolutely no excuse for what wherebugsgo says is bad logic, instead he avoids to do that. I do not have much experience of playing with WBG and whilst i have read about 4 of his games i am not sure i know his playstyle all that well. The vote of risk was kinda of dumb but i think that voting for someone because he thinks they are being stupid seems quite normal for WBG. On January 27 2012 08:11 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2012 08:09 risk.nuke wrote:
Yes, wbg. that everyone understood. Assuming nobody here is full on retard they can figure that out.
Wbg are you telling me you approve of vote circles? Yeah, I fully approve of them. I'm going to give Palmar some time to shape up, but if he doesn't agree with this (if he's town he should, it's completely logical) then he should probably die. Anyone who opposes the vote circle plan: please provide reasoning as to why it's bad. Palmar provided reasoning some 10 hours after WBG voted for risk.nuke, however since WBG was actively arguing with risk and Palmar had not been posting, him focusing on risk is quite understandable. He supported the trade circleLots of people supported the trade circle, and WBG gave some sound reasons as to why here (click) and he explains why he thinks just freely voting is bad here and here and here and here and herethen LSB preposes an adjusted plan he says he thinks there will be poor consequences here he disappears and gets lynched. Nearly all of wbg's posts were made before the plan we have agreed upon was mentioned. And most of his criticisms were legitimate and logical. Prplhz calls him scummy for supporting the plan that most of the players in the thread were supporting. He calls him scum for saying that Look at this post."Giving votes to who you think is town is terrible because scum will look more town, THAN TOWNIES". this is an inaccurate summary which take the original post out of context. WBG argues that mafia only need 1 member to look town in order for scum to gain a lot of votes, and says that this we be easier due to the no-flip aspect. How are we every going to catch scum then, is he setting us up to lynch the people who look most town because they're likely scum? Second paragraph is hilarious. If we can't trust people to semi-reliably pick out who is townie, then how can we trust them to semi-reliably pick out who is scum? If we can't trust them to do that then what the hell can we do, just sit here and be so afraid to make mistakes that we will give the game away to scum? what on earth is prplhz saying here and how does it relate to WBG's alignment? Single VP from town to mafia doesn't matter much because the mafia players who will end up with the most VP will be the most active and they will be figured out, the mafia players with fewer votes wont be as important to figure out right away. Prplhz then says that active scum with lots of votes (which they would get because they look townie) aren't a threat because they will be figured out. This is a horrendous criticism that is not only incorrect but does not show how WBG is behaving like scum. wherebugsgo should be fucking hooked on the free-trade plan, I don't remember a time when he was killed by town when he was town, but he's been figured out the last two times he was scum. That means that when he is town people usually know this, while when he's scum people will usually know this too. Then why doesn't he support the plan of trading VP to people who are town? Free-trading is a plan that allows everybody to ensure that their ability will be converted to votes, I think it massively favors town as long as we don't screw up massively which I am not going to assume. Italic: well he wasn't hooked and he explained why very clearly, so what if you disagree now, how does that make him supporting the plan earlier scummy? Underlined: Since you have a huge amount data supporting your comment i see nothing wrong with any of this. Other than the fact that how well people usually figure out his alignment has next to no bearing on what he thinks is best for town. He hasn't provided analysis day1In this game we don't get a mod confirmed alignment of people who die. We need an analysis to confirm their alignment to ourselves. wherebugsgo provides absolutely no analysis for risk.nuke other than "he doesn't support the plan". Look at this. This is what wherebugsgo is capable of, that analysis was done a lot later in that game but wherebugsgo has uncharacteristically provided nothing at all this game. Now he is ready to kill me and [UoN]Sentinel at Paperscraps with absolutely no analysis given, even though wherebugsgo always provides some reason and analysis is even more important in this game than in any other. Only scum would benefit from a lynch we're unsure of because they would be able to spin it in any direction favorable to them. That said, I don't think [UoN]Sentinel or Paperscraps looks like they're likely scum. I don't see how a comparison between day1 play here and a case that he made much later in another game is one that we can draw conclusions from. Besides that WBG's reasoning given was at least on par with everyone else. So i don't like prplhz's case.
You then publical announce that you are new (which if you are town is fucking dumb). You then write that you have "discussed plans", then "I'm done vouching my defense for now."
Bugs never justified his vote on me. Well he did
lol
Reading his earlier threads (especially that long justification he did) makes me suspicious of this action. do you mean especially the night 2 post 211 pages into a game? because that isn't really a fair comparison.
I am not sure what the comment about ViceraEyes is doing there.
I think you didn't have good reasons for voting WBG. You do not provide anything original. You do not explain why you agree with prplhz's case.
I think you only voted him because you would have been lynched if WBG didn't get votes
|
It was a good lynch. Bugs is a good player. Both me and Palmar realised how a cirklejerk was better for scum then for town almost instantly. He claims he did not. Furthermore at the time when the majority of posting people had gotten it somehow that cirklejerks were awesome he tried to quelsh any opposition HARD. As can be seen by his argumentation with me about cirklejerks ending in him agressivly voting for me trying to both quelsh resistance to a pro-mafia strategy and simultaneously starting a bandwagon on me. His vote was straight out dumb. It was not a pressure vote because I had already taken a stance. I had taken a stance and he wanted me dead for it.
And he kept talking all the time about how easy it was for mafia to act pro-town and get all the votes with my plan which is just false because if it was that easy as to look pro-town and not be pro-town. Then scum could roll the game regardless if people give them votes or not because pro-town looking people won't get lynched anyway. It was just fearmongering trying to scare away townies from the correct path.
Lastly, when things look dire for him and he has no defense to deploy but he just disapears.
|
On January 29 2012 23:55 risk.nuke wrote:
It was a good lynch. Bugs is a good player. Both me and Palmar realised how a cirklejerk was better for scum then for town almost instantly. He claims he did not. Furthermore at the time when the majority of posting people had gotten it somehow that cirklejerks were awesome he tried to quelsh any opposition HARD. As can be seen by his argumentation with me about cirklejerks ending in him agressivly voting for me trying to both quelsh resistance to a pro-mafia strategy and simultaneously starting a bandwagon on me. His vote was straight out dumb. It was not a pressure vote because I had already taken a stance. I had taken a stance and he wanted me dead for it.
And he kept talking all the time about how easy it was for mafia to act pro-town and get all the votes with my plan which is just false because if it was that easy as to look pro-town and not be pro-town. Then scum could roll the game regardless if people give them votes or not because pro-town looking people won't get lynched anyway. It was just fearmongering trying to scare away townies from the correct path.
Lastly, when things look dire for him and he has no defense to deploy but he just disapears.
whilst i could argue about the first point that would not be helpful.
the fearmongering aspect is also debatable, for instance+ Show Spoiler + On January 27 2012 00:44 risk.nuke wrote:
prplhz, I don't like the idea to give away 2 votes each day. Do you realise that if we mislynch day 1 and day 2, day 3 there will be. 37 votes in the game. And if mafia aren't under/over eachother in the list they can aqquire 20 votes. Leaving the town with 17. Yes it will be obvious who the scum is. But without some sort of powerrole intervention we can't do anything about it.
Veto
I think I would prefer a system where you can send your votes wherever you please. Obviously you will have to tell us what you do.
Why is this a better idea then everyone gets the same amount of votes?
Mafia can't lurk. Cause lurkers will likely end up on 1 vote and be useless.
Mafia will be forced to provide reasoning and...BAH I gtg. See you later.
He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched.
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities?
Do you think that the benefits of everyone trading 2 votes make it worth doing?
(please consider the lsb plan not just trading 2 votes in general) plan can be found : here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13291863 and http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13298111
|
Don't bother layabout, we're killing you tomorrow.
|
On January 30 2012 00:26 Palmar wrote:
Don't bother layabout, we're killing you tomorrow.
like we were killing VE?
|
On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2012 23:55 risk.nuke wrote:
It was a good lynch. Bugs is a good player. Both me and Palmar realised how a cirklejerk was better for scum then for town almost instantly. He claims he did not. Furthermore at the time when the majority of posting people had gotten it somehow that cirklejerks were awesome he tried to quelsh any opposition HARD. As can be seen by his argumentation with me about cirklejerks ending in him agressivly voting for me trying to both quelsh resistance to a pro-mafia strategy and simultaneously starting a bandwagon on me. His vote was straight out dumb. It was not a pressure vote because I had already taken a stance. I had taken a stance and he wanted me dead for it.
And he kept talking all the time about how easy it was for mafia to act pro-town and get all the votes with my plan which is just false because if it was that easy as to look pro-town and not be pro-town. Then scum could roll the game regardless if people give them votes or not because pro-town looking people won't get lynched anyway. It was just fearmongering trying to scare away townies from the correct path.
Lastly, when things look dire for him and he has no defense to deploy but he just disapears. whilst i could argue about the first point that would not be helpful. the fearmongering aspect is also debatable, for instance + Show Spoiler + On January 27 2012 00:44 risk.nuke wrote:
prplhz, I don't like the idea to give away 2 votes each day. Do you realise that if we mislynch day 1 and day 2, day 3 there will be. 37 votes in the game. And if mafia aren't under/over eachother in the list they can aqquire 20 votes. Leaving the town with 17. Yes it will be obvious who the scum is. But without some sort of powerrole intervention we can't do anything about it.
Veto
I think I would prefer a system where you can send your votes wherever you please. Obviously you will have to tell us what you do.
Why is this a better idea then everyone gets the same amount of votes?
Mafia can't lurk. Cause lurkers will likely end up on 1 vote and be useless.
Mafia will be forced to provide reasoning and...BAH I gtg. See you later. that could equally be labelled fearmongering, you used likely harmful consequences to persuade people of a point. WBG did the same thing. He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched.If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities?Do you think that the benefits of everyone trading 2 votes make it worth doing? (please consider the lsb plan not just trading 2 votes in general) plan can be found : here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13291863 and http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=13298111
6 people did not vote for him and 1 did not vote at all. The vote was basically 8-7. I don't think we can make any definitive conclusions based on the vote. We surely have some sort of DT role for checking the alignment of dead players. We shall have to await the time when said role decides to enlighten us to make any sense of who voted for Bugs and if said vote was scum driven or not.
|
No please layabout. I want to hear what you think. It will help me get a read on you. So argue the first point.
Fearmongering is not debatable. Wbg spoke things that wasn't true so people would do as he wanted out of fear. Whilst I stated a fact.
Your third point you can't make anything out of. It's wifom and meta. People do all kinds of weird shit when they are about to get lynched. Personally in my opinion most exept role-claim and arguing for your actions are scum-moves. I'm not going to specculate on how many remaining scum players there is. It's irrelevant if we don't have confirmation. I will lynch my strongest scumread. The # of scum I think is left in the game doesn't affect that (much).
I'm against any limitations to vote-trading for the moment. This might change later.
|
On January 30 2012 00:51 risk.nuke wrote:
No please layabout. I want to hear what you think. It will help me get a read on you. So argue the first point.
Fearmongering is not debatable. Wbg spoke things that wasn't true so people would do as he wanted out of fear. Whilst I stated a fact.
Your third point you can't make anything out of. It's wifom and meta. People do all kinds of weird shit when they are about to get lynched. Personally in my opinion most exept role-claim and arguing for your actions are scum-moves. I'm not going to specculate on how many remaining scum players there is. It's irrelevant if we don't have confirmation. I will lynch my strongest scumread. The # of scum I think is left in the game doesn't affect that (much).
I'm against any limitations to vote-trading for the moment. This might change later.
I totally agreed with him that circle trading was the best thing to do:
When i first saw the setup i felt that vote-trading was a way in which town could lose votes to mafia and that mafia could use to further increase their influence on the vote.
I then thought that if town were to transfer all of our votes around that we could limit the vote gain for mafia. It would also force everyone to vote for who town told them to so everyone could show that they were willing to help town.
then the game began and i saw that people had already suggested this and i supported it.
Then you made objections to it that did not make much sense. I felt that you were trying to push people to vote freely so that mafia could take advantage of that.
There was arguing
LSB came up with an improved circle trade plan that i thought was better.
Then Palmar finally explained why he disliked it and LSB proposed an alternative, that was quite simple : we should vote on our own and then explain what we had done and why the next day, we would also balance it out to prevent a small number of players from controlling the vote entirely. The difference from free trading is very small but i thought/ think that if we as town play well then mafia will be forced to post about their reads and give us information to help us to figure out their alignment.
This was how i viewed the plans and is why i think that WBG's actions made sense.
I do not think you criticised the vote circle plan itself, you basically just said that you thought vote trading was pro-town and then tried to refute what WBG had been saying because he had said that it was likely that at least one of the 4 mafia would be a vet or would look town and then gain votes. He also said that it was likely that there would be town players that would not look town and thus not get any votes thus increasing the chances that scum would gain votes. Those arguments were valid and you called him scum for them.
Psst + Show Spoiler +whenever you say lets not do "something" because if "something else" could happen which would be bad, you are fearmongering whether what you say is fact, likely or unlikely.
For instance if i were to say "lets not lynch day1 or 2 because we would probably hit 2 townies, then mafia can win with nighthits every night and mislynches on day 3 and 4 " that could be described as fearmongering.
You said . "I don't like the idea to give away 2 votes each day. Do you realise that if we mislynch day 1 and day 2, day 3 there will be. 37 votes in the game. And if mafia aren't under/over eachother in the list they can aqquire 20 votes. Leaving the town with 17." which is basically "lets not give away two votes becuase if we mislynch 3 days in a row then mafia could win"
|
On January 30 2012 00:51 risk.nuke wrote:
No please layabout. I want to hear what you think. It will help me get a read on you. So argue the first point.
Fearmongering is not debatable. Wbg spoke things that wasn't true so people would do as he wanted out of fear. Whilst I stated a fact.
Your third point you can't make anything out of. It's wifom and meta. People do all kinds of weird shit when they are about to get lynched. Personally in my opinion most exept role-claim and arguing for your actions are scum-moves. I'm not going to specculate on how many remaining scum players there is. It's irrelevant if we don't have confirmation. I will lynch my strongest scumread. The # of scum I think is left in the game doesn't affect that (much).
I'm against any limitations to vote-trading for the moment. This might change later.
I am glad that you now think that him not being around can only result in wifom and meta because you didn't seem to think so earlier
On January 29 2012 23:55 risk.nuke wrote:
-snipped-
Lastly, when things look dire for him and he has no defense to deploy but he just disapears.
|
Personally in my opinion most exept role-claim and arguing for your actions are scum-moves.
|
Now that I'm back,
On January 29 2012 22:08 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Please explain why you think this way.
wbg never posted in his defence and i didn't have computer acess, i don't see what would be prodictive about me explaining why i think you made a bad decision.*
Never posting in his defense =/= awful lynch, could just mean he has nothing left to back himself with.
This is all fluff, everything in this paragraphs has already been mentioned.
Fluff my arsehole. There are still a number of player who have not yet said that they are on board. Additionally the number of votes people trade is important and is one of the only things that we can actually discuss.
But it has been discussed, time and time again. Everyone can read, or state their opinions which you can then refute, which is why I think this is all grade-A fluff.
Show nested quote +
If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason because you do not know the alignment of the player that you are giving votes to. You should not be giving out more or less votes depending on the strength of your read.
What? maybe you could try reading?
If you know you are town you should not be giving more than 1 vote away without a good reason
This is what confuses me.
Everyone knows they are town, and those who aren't sure as hell aren't going to say "look at me i'm scum watch me give away multiple votes".
The whole point of the plan is to say, "I've got a strong read on this player, so here's my votes. If I die, he can keep the votes. If I survive, then he has to give them back or else it's lynching time."
You then publical announce that you are new (which if you are town is fucking dumb).
I have a feeling it's part of the reason I got saved (the other part is that bugs looked more suspicious). Like LSB said, mafia pretends to be noob to avert suspicion, but the fact that I'm not pretending to be noob, I AM noob (IDK if this can actually be confirmed, but it can be supported with evidence) does help my case.
You then write that you have "discussed plans", then "I'm done vouching my defense for now."
Which is exactly what I did.
Out of context. Here's the full line:
Bugs never justified his vote on me. Well he did, but when I asked him about it, Paperscraps just took over and I never got a reply from bugs.
This is the whole no-defense thing that you were talking about, how bugs just suddenly stopped justifying his words.
Show nested quote +Reading his earlier threads (especially that long justification he did) makes me suspicious of this action. do you mean especially the night 2 post 211 pages into a game? because that isn't really a fair comparison. I am not sure what the comment about ViceraEyes is doing there.
Why I'm voting for bugs instead of Viscera.
I think you didn't have good reasons for voting WBG. You do not provide anything original. You do not explain why you agree with prplhz's case.
False, I explained why his lynch had no defense, using prp's evidence that bugs will use any evidence he has. Even at D1, there are still pieces of evidence to use to come up with at least something to condemn me, or better yet, something original. But he just shut up after I called him out. Didn't even back up what paperscraps was calling me out on.
I think you only voted him because you would have been lynched if WBG didn't get votes
That is correct, because it was him, then me, then no-lynch. Better get rid of me than to waste a night. But in the same way, that's like saying "I came second in a race because the other guy was faster than me, if he didn't exist I would be first." The runner in that scenario is faster than you and that is why he won the race. Bugs is more suspicious of being scum than me and that is why he won the poison.
|
So we got no plan for the vote trade? Cool. Good thing we spend the first 2 days talking about that. And why are you arguing over the WBG lynch? Whether he was scum or not is not super relevant right now and you have to way to get the truth.
And we should lynch chaoser...
|
Hey 
Even though you left a full 8 hours before the lynch, not pushing [UoN]Sentinel strongly at all, you feel like you can come in here and complain about it? And you don't even have a point with your complaining, only "that was bad", you don't use it for anything other than complaining for the sake of complaining. Laughable at best, not laughable at worst.
@Palmar What was that game where you were Arctocod with syllogism?
|
On January 30 2012 04:38 Dirkzor wrote:
So we got no plan for the vote trade? Cool. Good thing we spend the first 2 days talking about that. And why are you arguing over the WBG lynch? Whether he was scum or not is not super relevant right now and you have to way to get the truth.
And we should lynch chaoser...
Discussing a lynch is plenty useful -- and what else are we going to do while we wait for the day post? I mean, obviously the discussion should come before the lynch, but asking people to justify their actions is never a bad idea.
I've got bad feelings about you, but I'll wait for the day post to get into it.
|
On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
He disappeared and nobody spoke out against his defence. Couldn't you say that this make it seem like he was a townie? It was not like we had caught him out and he was obvious scum that we lynched. There was limited discussion and it ended with him being lynched.
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid). Are you going to proceed under the assumption that there are 3 scum left or 4? Are you going to be open to both possibilities?
I'll play devil's advocate here, since you like that WIFOM.
Lets assume WBG was mafia for a minute. Why would mafia speak out in defense for him? It would only draw suspicion onto them. WBG didn't even defend himself. As risk.nuke mentioned above people do weird stuff when under the gun, which is great because this is when scum make mistakes. Any self-respecting townie would at least try to defend themselves, role claim, anything other than lurk! or at least I would hope a townie would.
On January 30 2012 00:09 layabout wrote:
If you think that he was scum then it seems reasonable to assume that his teammates did not bus him (because that would have been stupid).
Also bussing is valid tactic for mafia. That is a scummy thing to say. It is not reasonable to assume anything of the mafia's plan, when they have a QT to discuss something delicate like a bus, before hand.
In a no flip game town has to assume the worst until PRs can give us something concrete, thus we will of course keep an open mind that 4 mafia could still remain.
|
@MeatlessTaco Where are you at?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
